McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project
Excerpted Chapters from:
Norman L. Geisler's (1982) The Creator in the Courtroom: Scopes II, Mott Media Inc.
Used by permission of Baker Books, a division of Baker Publishing Group, copyright (c) 1982. All rights to this material are reserved. Materials are not to be distributed to other web locations for retrieval, published in other media, or mirrored at other sites without written permission from Baker Publishing Group. http://www.bakerbooks.com
Please note: This is not an official record of the trial and may, in part, reflect the views of the author who was a witness for the state of Arkansas in favor of Act 590.
See Participants page for links to more information on Dr. Geisler.
Chapter Four Record of Plaintiffs’ Religion and Philosophy Testimony
Chapter Five Record of Plaintiffs’ Science and Education Testimony
Chapter Six Record of Defense’s Religion, Philosophy, and Education Testimonies
Chapter Seven Record of Defense’s Science Testimonies
Record
of Plaintiffs’ Religion and Philosophy Testimony
Summary of Plaintiffs’
Testimony
Monday, 7 December 1981
Plaintiffs’ Witnesses Hicks,
Vawter,
Marsden, Nelkin, Gilkey
The trial opened at 9:30 a.m. in the crowded fourth floor courtroom of the
Little Rock Federal Building with the words of the U.S. Marshall: ”. . . God
save the United States and this honorable court.” Lawyers for both the
plaintiffs and the defense presented opening arguments summarizing their briefs,
then the first witness for the plaintiffs was called.
Bishop
Kenneth Hicks
Bishop
Kenneth Hicks, of the Arkansas conferences of the United Methodist Church, was
the first witness to take the stand. Hicks, himself one of the plaintiffs,
testified that the Act was clearly a “transgression of the First Amendment.”
Hicks outlined three specific objections he had to the Act. First, he said, he
objected to the bill’s definition of creation-science, as it limited
scientific inquiry to the six areas specified in the bill and reflected a
literalistic interpretation of the Genesis account in the Bible. His second
objection was to that part of the Act which stated as part of its purpose
“preventing establishment of Theologically Liberal, Humanist, Nontheist, or
Atheist religions.” (Section 6) Hicks claimed that such language, with its
“undefined labels,” contains an element of alarm and imposes constraints on
these views. Hicks also objected that the Act was a mixture of philosophical and
theological beliefs designed to limit scientific inquiry.
Bishop
Hicks concluded by saying “The Bible is important to my life. I hold very
dearly and intently to the opening words of Genesis: ‘In the beginning God
created . . . . ‘To go beyond that, and to try to circumscribe the way in
which he did it, belittles both God and the theological process.”
On
cross examination, Hicks admitted that the Act specifically prohibited religious
instruction in defense of creation-science (Section 2: “must not include any
religious instruction or references to religious writings.”) Hicks also
admitted that any “limits” to free inquiry were based on his assumption that
the definitions of creation-science and evolution-science were meant to be
comprehensive. Hicks agreed that his perception of “creation” was
necessarily religious because of his training, and that he would have difficulty
considering “creation” in a scientific sense.
Father
Francis Bruce Vawter
The
second ACLU witness was Father Francis Bruce Vawter, a Roman Catholic priest and
professor of theology at DePaul University, Chicago. He testified to the
religious nature of the Act. He characterized the book of Genesis as an
explanation of religious convictions concerning human origins and the origin of
the world. He argued that as there were no witnesses to creation, Genesis should
not be taken as a factual account (which could only be derived from a direct
witness). Vawter contrasted the Biblical literalists’ view (which would take
the account at face value), with the historical-critical view (which accorded
more closely to his own approach). Vawter testified that Act 590 was consistent
with a literalistic interpretation of Genesis.
“This
Act,” he said, “in its description of what it calls creation-science, has as
its unmentioned reference book the first eleven chapters of Genesis.” He gave
several specific references. Vawter pointed out that the term “kinds” in the
Act (Sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(3)) had as its source the King James translation
of the Bible. Vawter also noted that “catastrophism” and a “worldwide
flood” (Section 4(a)(5)) must refer to the Noahic deluge recorded in Genesis,
though he later admitted that this was also paralleled by a similar Babylonian
myth. Vawter concluded, “I do not know of any other creation story (except in
Genesis) that embodies those parts.”
On
cross examination Vawter was pressed on this point, and he admitted that many
points of creation-science could not be found in Genesis according to his view
of the book. Specifically, he agreed that Genesis neither affirmed nor denied
the “insufficiency of evolutionary mechanisms.” (Section 4(a)(2)) Similarly,
he said that “changes only within fixed limits” (Section 4(a)(3)) are not
required by the Genesis account, nor must separate ancestry for man and apes
(Section 4(a)(4)) be understood from the text. Vawter testified that the only
evidence for “catastrophism” (Section 4(a)(5)) to be found in the Genesis
account was the occurrence of the Noahic flood, and that even the “sudden
creation of the universe” (Section 4(a)(1)) was not required by the Biblical
account of origins.
Vawter
agreed that he was not a competent judge of the scientific evidence, and that he
had always studied “creation” in a religious context. Vawter said that the
idea of evolution was not at all inconsistent with Genesis, and that he saw no
conflict between the concepts of creation and evolution.
On
redirect examination, Vawter reemphasized some points in his original testimony,
and restated his conclusion that the source of Act 590’s description of
creation-science was the book of Genesis.
Dr.
George Marsden
The
third witness called by the plaintiffs was Dr. George Marsden, professor of
History at Calvin College, an evangelical Christian college in Grand Rapids,
Michigan. Marsden’s area of testimony concerned Fundamentalism. Marsden
typified Fundamentalists as “militantly anti-modernist” and chiefly
concerned with “spreading the faith.” He testified that while anti-Darwinism
was not as important a facet of Fundamentalist belief as usually thought,
Darwinism was (especially in the South) a symbol of secularism. The
Fundamentalists of the 1920’s held to a model of origins based on the Bible
and had a “dualistic outlook” in viewing creation and evolution. Marsden
said the creation-science movement is “strikingly similar” to the
Fundamentalist movement in its approach to origins. He based this view on
several observations. Creation scientists, he said, hold a literalistic view of
Genesis, oppose all forms of evolution (including theistic evolution) and use
the Bible as the primary source for their beliefs. Marsden quoted from Henry
Morris’ The Troubled Waters of Evolution and Duane Gish’s Evolution:
The Fossils Say No! in order to show the religious intent and source of
creationists’ beliefs.
At
this point Defense attorney David L. Williams objected on the grounds of
relevance, saying, “Merely because someone calls it creation-science somewhere
out in the world doesn’t mean it complies with Act 590.” The plaintiffs
argued that Marsden’s testimony was relevant to their contention that all
creationist literature advanced religious goals. Overton overruled the
objection, saying, “If the people who are writing about creation-science are
borrowing their ideas from religious movements I would think that is relevant.
These writers can’t wear two hats; they can’t call it religion for one
purpose and science for another.”
Marsden
continued, concluding that Act 590 represented a Fundamentalist view of origins.
Before cross-examining Marsden, defense attorney David Williams pointed out that
the books Marsden had quoted from were printed in two editions, one intended for
public school use and one (containing an explanatory notice inside the front
cover) intended for Christian schools.
On
cross-examination, Marsden admitted that Act 590 was not exclusively a product
of Fundamentalism. In particular, he noted that many Fundamentalists believe
that the creation happened in six literal twenty-four-hour days-a view not found
in the Act. Additionally, while Fundamentalists typically oppose evolution,
Marsden agreed that Act 590 does not, and that not all Fundamentalists would be
able to accept the Act. Marsden conceded that he was not a scientist, and since
his training was religious, he could not distinguish between “religious” and
“scientific” creationism. Marsden concluded by agreeing that it was typical
to talk of Fundamentalists as champions of scientific inquiry.
Ms.
Dorothy Nelkin
The
next witness was Ms. Dorothy Nelkin, a professor of Sociology at Cornell
University. The substance of her testimony concerned the relationship of Act 590
to the creation-science movement. She testified that Fundamentalists were
opposed to evolution, and that they make use of science to “legitimatize”
their religious beliefs. She claimed that the aim of creation-science was to
convince others of their beliefs, and that they “believe it’s necessary to
give their ideas a sense of scientific credibility.” Nelkin stated that
creationists only give negative evidence against evolution, rather than evidence
for creation. She noted that many of the creationists’ books came in public
school and Christian school editions.
On
cross-examination Ms. Nelkin agreed that speculation or intuition could
legitimately lead to a scientific theory that could then be tested. She said
that evolution was not based on any a priori assumptions. She admitted that
Julian Huxley had formed a naturalistic religion based on evolution, but said
that in so doing he abused evolution.
Nelkin
testified that while the scientific community is theoretically a meritocracy,
historically it has not been neutral, and in fact scientific opinion has been
influenced by society.
Nelkin
confessed that she had entered her study of the creation-science movement with
the presupposition that creation-science was not truly scientific. She also
agreed that as she was not a scientist, she was not competent to judge the
validity of the scientific evidence for creationism.
Defense
attorney Williams asked Nelkin whether theories of origins were testable. She
agreed that such theories were not directly testable by observation. When asked
whether evolutionary theory presupposed the nonexistence of a creator, she said
“No” (thus contradicting her deposition; she explained this inconsistency by
saying “I was confused.”).
When
asked whether creation-science should be taught in schools to the extent that
there was scientific evidence, she called the question a “contradiction in
terms” (though she had answered the same question in her deposition “Of
course.”). Nelkin was asked whether a religion could be based on science, and
answered in the negative, though she later admitted that this, too, was
inconsistent with her deposition. Finally, she said “People can take science
and use it any way they choose.”
The
last questions directed at Nelkin concerned the availability of textbooks
presenting the balanced view advocated by Act 590. Nelkin agreed that textbook
publishers would probably produce such texts, if the law were upheld. “Sure,
there’s money in it,” she said.
Dr.
Langdon Gilkey
The
final witness to take the stand Monday was Dr. Langdon Gilkey, professor of
theology at the University of Chicago School of Divinity. Gilkey’s testimony
concerned the definition of “religion” and the relationship of religious and
scientific knowledge. Gilkey defined religion as having three essential parts.
He said (1) a religion involves a view of ultimate reality: it deals with the
basic problem of human existence and provides an answer to the problem through
myths, stories, truths, and teachings, (2) a religion is a way of life finding
its source in the ultimate reality, and (3) a religion involves a community
structure expressed for example in worship. He stated that in Western religions
“God” is the source of ultimate reality. Gilkey said that all that is
religious is related to God, and that all that is related to God is religious.
Gilkey claimed that creation “ex nihilo” (from nothing) was the most
religious of all statements since God was the only actor. He added “A creator
is certainly a God if he brings the universe into existence from nothing.” He
said that since creation necessitates a Creator, Act 590 “is unquestionably a
statement of religion.” He said, though, that a creative force is not
necessarily religious, though a creative being must be.
Gilkey
testified that the attempt to distinguish the “Creator” from a God to be
worshipped was similar to the Marcionic and Gnostic heresies which plagued the
Church in the first century, and which led in part to the adoption of the
Apostles’ Creed as a statement of orthodox faith.
Gilkey’s
testimony next turned to the relationship of religious and scientific models. He
characterized Act 590 as a religious model of origins rather than a scientific
model, and gave several differences between the two. Gilkey said that religious
and scientific models differed in the experiences and facts appealed to and in
the types of questions asked. Scientific models, he said, deal with facts that
are observable, repeatable, and objective. A religious model, though, refers to
the facts “as a whole,” to “inner facts,” and to facts which are not
objective. Science asks what? and how? questions, said Gilkey, but religion asks
why? He said that science appeals to a sense of coherence and elegance which is
confirmed by the scientific community, but that religious authority resides in
“revelation” and the “interpreters of revelation.”
Gilkey
claimed that scientific laws are universal and necessary, and that no
non-naturalistic process may be appealed to within the bounds of science. He
said that religious theories use symbolic, not objective, language, and concern
personal causes and intentions.
Gilkey’s
testimony then moved to the area of apologetics. He testified that
creation-science was in fact apologetics, not science, that it was an effort to
“spread the faith.” Continued Gilkey, “There’s nothing wrong with
apologetics, I’ve written some, the only problem is when one has two hats on
and hides one.” Gilkey claimed that Act 590 represented a “dualistic”
approach to origins because it assumed that there were only two views on origins
and that these were mutually exclusive, He challenged this assumption, saying
that there were other views (e.g., theistic evolution) and that some people
believed in God and evolution.
On
cross-examination by Defense counsel Rick Campbell, Gilkey was asked to comment
on primary and secondary causality in scientific and religious knowledge. (In
philosophical language the primary, or ultimate cause of an event is
distinguished from the secondary or direct cause of an event.) Gilkey said that
while not all questions of ultimate origins are religious, for scientists to
talk about primary causality is for them to stray afield. Gilkey agreed that the
Bible does not refer to primary and secondary causality, but said that these
might be inferred from the text.
Gilkey
stated that the Bible was the guide in his own life and in his understanding of
the world. He said that it influences the fields of philosophy and science as
well as his own views. Gilkey said that scientists were not the only ones to
define science, and that for example historians have reminded scientists of
cultural influences on science.
Campbell
then asked Gilkey whether a scientist should be permitted to talk in a classroom
about creation-science if he felt that there was evidence. Gilkey modified the
response that he gave in his deposition (“Of course, of course”), saying
that this would be appropriate only if the teacher could argue that
creation-science was a theory (since according to Gilkey, science resides in
theories, not in facts). He said that while a professional should be able to
decide, the ultimate authority would reside with the biological community.
Gilkey added that he was against requiring that creation-science be
taught, not against teaching it.
Gilkey
conceded that apologetics was not always religious, that there were atheist
apologists giving a defense for atheism. He cited Bertrand Russell as an
example.
Campbell
asked Gilkey where the “why?” questions were in Act 590. Gilkey said that
there were none, that there were no questions at all, only answers. Campbell
asked whether science could answer “why?” questions. Gilkey said that
science could not deal with questions of ultimate origins, and conceded that if
evolution were to do this it would not be science, but theology.
Gilkey
agreed that there are religions which hold evolution as part of their creed,
such as the religious beliefs espoused by Spencer and Huxley. When asked whether
evolution was “atheistic,” Gilkey replied that science does not talk about
God. When asked whether this exclusion of God from science was a presupposition,
he said that properly speaking there were two types of presuppositions. In the
first category were “characteristic presuppositions” of Western culture or
of the scientific community, such as the reality of the material world, In the
second category were “canons,” or “rules of the road,” which might be
based on presuppositions, but were not themselves presuppositions in the same
sense. The principle of falsification, for instance, is a canon, as is the
exclusion of God.
Gilkey,
when asked, admitted that creative leaps of imagination were part of the history
of science, though those who took such leaps were not part of the scientific
mainstream. He said that, for example, Copernicus, in making his break with
established thought, was not entirely within the mainstream of science.
On
redirect examination, Gilkey said that a secular statement was not necessarily
atheistic. He also repeated his opinion that science cannot appeal to a
supernatural cause.
Tuesday,
8 December 1981
Plaintiffs’
Witnesses Ruse, Ayala,
Holstead, Dalrymple
The court reconvened at
9:00, and the judge revealed his ruling on a Defense motion seeking “an order
in limine excluding all evidence addressing either the validity or invalidity of
evolution-science and/or creation-science as a ‘scientific theory’ on the
ground that such evidence is irrelevant to the determination of the
constitutionality of Act 590 on its face.” Overton denied the motion. Defense
attorneys then requested that Ms. Nelkin’s deposition be received into the
record as evidence. The deposition was accepted, and the first witness of the
day took the stand.
Dr.
Michael Ruse
Dr.
Michael Ruse, professor of Philosophy at the University of Guelph, in Ontario,
Canada, testified concerning the nature of science, particularly biology. Ruse
defined science as consisting of four essentials. First, science must explain
events by means of natural law, or “unguided natural regularities.” Also,
science must be “explanatory,” “testable,” and “tentative.” Ruse
said “explanatory” means that science must predict and confirm events, so
that science is self-generating, it is constantly moving into new areas. To say
that science must be “testable,” or “falsifiable,” means there must be
at least potential for evidence against a scientific belief. As an example, Ruse
cited the theory of evolution. Evolution is thought to be unidirectional, that
is evolution is thought to continually lead to more and more complex forms of
life. If scientists were to find evidence that evolution sometimes proceeded in
the direction of less complexity, this aspect of the theory would be falsified.
The fourth essential of science is that it be “tentative.” This means that a
scientist must always be willing to modify his understanding of the data. Ruse
said that a scientist’s work should be objective, without personal bias,
public, repeatable, and honest.
Ruse
said that the way in which contradictory evidence is dealt with depends both on
the nature of the evidence and the theory attacked by the evidence. Unless the
evidence were to be quite strong, it could not overturn a well-supported theory.
Ruse said that “observability” is not an essential in science, although
creation-science literature often listed it as such. He said that sometimes
direct empirical evidence simply is not necessary.
Ruse,
who wrote Darwinism Defended, an examination of the attack of the
creationists on evolution, testified that evolution is not under attack by
credible scientists. He claimed that there is a double use of the word
“evolution,” to indicate either the “happening” of evolution or the
“mechanism” of evolution. He said that usually the “theory” of evolution
is used as a synonym for “mechanism” of evolution, while the “fact” of
evolution refers to the “happening” of evolution. Ruse said that, other than
creation-scientists, no scientists challenge the happening of evolution, though
of course evolutionists do disagree about how it happened.
Ruse
testified that Act 590 is a statement of scientific creationism, and is “very
closely” related to the creationist literature, “so closely, I’d say they
were identical.” The Act, he said, has a dual model approach to the question
of origins, contains the six points usually covered in books on scientific
creationism, and used the term “evolution-science.” (Section 4(b)(1), etc.).
He said that the wording of the bill implies the existence of a creator in the
word “creation.” (Section 4(a)(1)) Ruse said that the word “kinds” used
in the Act (Sections 4(a)(3), 4(a)(3)) is not a scientific word, that it is not
a taxonomic category, but rather is derived from the book of Genesis. He
criticized the Act’s description of evolution-science as inadequate, saying
that it implies that all six points are to be taken as a package deal, though
not all evolutionists would agree with the definition.
Ruse
said that evolution doesn’t say anything pro or con about the existence of
God, nor does it inquire into the origin of life. Ruse gave as an example of
evolution the change in predominant coloration of the population of certain
species of moth in industrial England. He said that creationists respond to such
examples, “We admit the evolution the evolutionists have found-that’s just
not enough.” When asked whether creationists explain why evolutionary change
should be limited, Ruse said, “Not really, no.” He said the assertion was
“an ad hoc device that creation scientists have had to think up to get away
from some of the things evolutionists have come up with.”
Ruse
further objected to the points under the definition of creation-science that
dealt with the flood (Section 4(a)(5)) and with a young earth (Section 4(a)(6))
as not really important to the question of origins. He also objected to the
contrast between “catastrophism” (Section 4(a)(5)) and “uniformitarianism.”
(Section 4(a)(5)) He said that the Act polarizes the two views, and implies that
disproof of evolution is equivalent to proof of creation,
Ruse
said that “creation-science is not science, it’s religion,” and that it
“invokes miracles.” He added, “Nobody’s saying religion is false, they
are saying it’s not science.” He said that creation-science does not rely on
“natural law” and is not “explanatory.” He said that there is too much
dependence in creation science on “ad hoc explanations,” and that though it
has explanations, they are not “scientific explanations.” He added that
“something that can explain everything is no explanation at all.” Ruse said
creation-science also fails to be “testable” and “tentative,” and that
it employs an improper methodology.
Ruse
said that creationists often quote evolutionists out of context, that they imply
that there is disagreement about whether evolution happened, not just how it
happened. He referred to this practice as “dishonest” and “sleazy.”
On
cross examination, Dr. Ruse admitted that he had no training in biology, nor had
he done any significant independent study.
He
agreed that many scientists believe that life was generated from nonlife. He
said that the ultimate origin of the universe might be an area for scientific
concern and that the “Big Bang” model certainly is within the realm of
science. Ruse said that the theory of evolution does not extend to the source of
life, that it takes life as a given. He added, however, that the origin of life
is also a matter for scientific inquiry.
Defense
attorney Williams asked how a theory of origins might be tested, since there
were no direct observations. Ruse said that such a theory might be tested by
observation in an analogous situation, by controlled experimentation in the
laboratory, or by computer modeling. He added that this would not make the work
unscientific. He agreed with Williams that these methods would be dependent on
the conditions assumed to be on the earth at the time of the origin of life,
though these conditions could not be known with certainty.
Ruse
admitted that at least one philosopher of science, Karl R. Popper, considers
both evolution and creation to be equally unscientific, because of the
impossibility of falsifying either.
Williams
asked Ruse to distinguish between a “fact” and a “theory.” A “model”
could be thought of as an “explanation,” and would be “narrower” than a
“theory.”
Williams
asked Ruse further about the example of evolution he had given in his direct
testimony. Ruse agreed that, although it is often cited as an example of
observed evolution, no new species were formed. He said that there were two
forms of moth both before and after.
Williams
pressed Ruse on the question of the “polarization” of the two models, asking
whether it was true that either there was a creator or there was no creator.
Ruse avoided the question, but then admitted that if two models were mutually
exclusive, then evidence against one would be evidence for the other.
Ruse
agreed that the books produced by the Institute for Creation Research would not
be permitted under the Act because of the religious content. When asked about
his personal teaching method in the classroom, Ruse said that he did give a
“balanced treatment,” but that this does not mean that he teaches all
theories ever held. Ruse said that teaching evidences for creation-science would
be meaningless “unless you are talking about a theory.”
Ruse
characterized himself as “somewhere between a Deist and an Agnostic.” He
agreed with Williams that religious people can be competent scientists. He said
that while creation from nothing is not consistent with his belief, evolution is
inconsistent with the beliefs of some students.
Williams
asked whether some scientists believe that the theory of evolution is not
falsifiable. Ruse said that most believe that it is falsifiable, though some,
including Karl Popper (whom he called an “old man”), do not.
The
plaintiffs objected to the relevance of this line of questioning as evolution
was not on trial. The judge overruled the objection after a short recess.
Ruse
was asked to define “teleology.” He said it was an attempt at understanding
in terms of purpose rather than causes. He agreed that teleology could be either
theological or non-theological.
Ruse
said that there are no authorities in the area of philosophy of science. He
agreed that “What is science?” was a question for philosophers of science,
and that there is no agreement on its answer.
Ruse
said he objected to Act 590 because it was a foot in the door of science
classrooms for religion, that it was “the thin edge of a very large wedge”
of an attempt to teach religion as science. He said that he was against Biblical
literalism, and was concerned for what might happen if the law were to stand. He
further said that he was “shocked” that a creationism display had recently
been put up in the British Museum.
Ruse
said that it is possible for scientists to become emotionally attached to their
theories, both individually and as groups. He said his purpose at the trial was
to “fight a battle” against creationism.
Ruse
agreed that ideas from outside science could be sources of scientific theories,
and said that to other scientists it is more important that the theories fit the
data than what the source was. He gave as an example the work of Dr. Stephen Jay
Gould, a Marxist paleontologist. He said that though Gould “pushes” Marxism
the source of his science isn’t important. Ruse said that he did not accept
Gould’s theory personally, but that is because of lack of evidence, not
because of the theory’s source. He said that Darwin had developed his theory
of evolution because of his personal religious Deism.
On
redirect examination, Ruse repeated his assertion that data without a theory are
not science. He said that it is not possible to separate evidence from a theory.
He said once again that evolution is science.
On
recross examination, Williams asked, “Is evolution a fact?” Ruse replied in
the affirmative. Williams asked, “How then is it tentative?”
The
plaintiffs’ testimony turned from philosophy and religion to the scientific
and educational portion of their case.
The plaintiffs’ religious and philosophical testimony was reported in the following manner.
Record
of Plaintiffs’ Science and Education Testimony
Summary
of Plaintiffs’ Testimony
Tuesday,
in the early afternoon, the thrust of the plaintiffs’ testimony turned to the
scientific case against creationism. The first scientist was called to the
stand.
Dr.
Francisco J. Ayala
The
first science witness called by the ACLU was Dr. Francisco J. Ayala, professor
of Genetics at the University of California at Davis. He testified concerning
the scientific validity of creation-science.
Dr.
Ayala testified that creation-science, as expressed in the Act was not science,
because it was neither naturalistic nor was it falsifiable. He gave as an
example the creationists’ assertions that there are limits to evolutionary
change. Creation-scientists make use of the term “kind,” said Ayala, to
delineate the limits of change, but this word is “religious,” not
scientific.
Ayala
then explained the significance of the phrase “natural selection,” the idea
that, because of the harshness of nature, animals with physical and genetic
weaknesses will die younger and have fewer offspring. This, according to
evolutionists, would have the effect of encouraging useful genetic change. Ayala
said that creationists do not dispute the action of natural selection, but do
give limits to the amount of change it may generate. Ayala said, however, that
there was nothing self-limiting about natural processes. Ayala’s testimony
became increasingly technical as he spoke of the role of genetics in
evolutionary science. He explained several ideas concerning the mechanisms of
evolution and said that the Act’s definition of evolution-science was
inadequate. He said that evolutionary theory does not include the concept of
life from nonlife, but that it presupposes the existence of life. Ayala said
that evolutionists do not accept “the sufficiency of mutation and natural
selection,” (Section 4(a)(2)) but recognize the existence of other mechanisms,
such as recombination, genetic drift, and the founder effect. Ayala then
discussed the importance of mutation in evolution. He said that while most
mutations are harmful to the organism, many are beneficial, and the harmful ones
are almost immediately eliminated by natural selection. He said that although
creation scientists often assert that mutations must present immediately
beneficial results in order to be successful, in so doing they ignore the fact
that latent genetic traits can be retained, and become useful later.
Ayala
said that “the emergence of life from nonlife,” (Section 4(b)(1)) is not
actually part of evolutionary theory. He said that the theory of evolution deals
only with existing processes such as mutation.
He
also objected to the Act’s contention that there were only two models of
origins. He said that one can never claim that there are only two models.
Instead, he said that the creation-science model is not a scientific model at
all, and that there are several evolutionary models.
He
spoke of the scientific validity of evolution, and explained some of the
evidences for evolution. He said that the similarities between human and animal
proteins implied evolution. At one point, he handed Judge Overton a chart
showing these similarities. Ayala said, “It’s simpler than it looks.”
Replied Overton, “I sure hope so.”
Ayala
contended that it was not necessary to observe evolution directly and said that
it is not possible to observe macroevolution. He noted, however, that
“speciation,” the splitting of one species into two, has been observed in
the laboratory. Ayala said that evolution does not presuppose the nonexistence
of a creator, but that “a creator, a God can create the world any way he
chooses.” He said that God might “establish the laws by which the world
evolves. God may have created the mountains. He may have created the processes
by which the mountains are formed. Science is neutral.” Ayala said that a
creator would be a personal God by necessity.
During
cross-examination by Defense attorney David Williams, Ayala agreed that he had
been president of the Society for the Study of Evolution, and had formed an
educational committee, with the purpose of countering movements which were
opposed to the teaching of evolution. He admitted that the creation-science
movement was one of these movements. He also admitted that he had been
instrumental in the attempts of two other organizations, the National Academy of
Science and the Committee of Correspondence, to limit anti-evolution movements.
Williams
asked Ayala whether it was true that there either was or was not a Creator. Said
Ayala, “The law of contradiction still holds.”
Ayala
said that “testability,” not “observability,” was a necessity for a
scientific model, and said that some of the most interesting aspects of science
were not observable. He called science “a creation of the mind,” and said
models could be used to make predictions, which could then be tested. He agreed
that conclusions based on such a technique would be inferences.
When
asked to define the term “religion,” Ayala, who holds the equivalent of a
doctorate in theology, quoted from the writings of theologian Paul Tillich.
Ayala said that religion was a concern for the ultimate reality, which would
require religious convictions, but not belief in a creator. He agreed that
humanism could be a religion. He said that evolution might cause some students
to reject their religious beliefs.
Ayala
said that he believed that life arose from nonlife through naturalistic
processes. He said that this was a testable theory, and that it should be taught
in the public schools. He agreed that to the extent that there were scientific
evidences for creationism, they should be taught in the classroom. Ayala said
that while academic freedom is “a right and a privilege,” a teacher need not
agree with an idea in order to teach it.
Senator
Jim Holsted
The
next witness for the ACLU was Senator Jim Holsted, an Arkansas state senator,
and sponsor of the bill which became Act 590. Holsted testified concerning the
source of the bill and his own motivations in introducing it.
Holsted
testified that he received the bill from a business associate, Carl Hunt, and
later learned that the bill had been drafted by Paul Ellwanger. (Ellwanger
formed the South Carolina-based creationism organization, Citizens for Fairness
in Education.)
He
testified that the bill was passed in the Senate without being referred to a
committee, and said that the bill received “fifteen to thirty” minutes of
discussion on the Senate floor. Holsted said that no one spoke against the bill.
In the House, the bill was sent to the Education Committee, where it received a
short hearing before being returned to the floor.
Holsted
testified that his motivation in introducing the bill partly involved his
personal religious convictions. Of the bill, he said, “Certainly, it would
have to be compatible with something I believed in. I’m not going to stand
before the Senate and introduce something I don’t believe in.”
He
admitted that the bill was strongly supported by religious fundamentalists, and
agreed that the Act favored Biblical literalists. Hoisted admitted that the term
“creation” presupposes a creator, but said that the Act did not violate the
First Amendment, because “it doesn’t mention any particular god.”
The
cross-examination of Holsted was very brief. Hoisted agreed that because of the
nature of the Arkansas legislature, which meets for only 60 days every two
years, it is not unusual for a bill to be passed with little or no debate.
Dr.
G. Brent Dalrymple
The
next witness to be called, late Tuesday afternoon, was Dr. G. Brent Dalrymple, a
geochronology expert and geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. His
testimony concerned the age of the earth and the relevance of geochronology to
creation-science as expressed in Act 590.
Dalrymple
testified that, though creationists usually claimed an age for the earth of
about 10,000 years, there was no evidence that the earth was young, but rather
that the evidence indicated that the earth was about 4.5 billion years old.
Dalrymple indicated that on this point, at least, creation-science could be
falsified, and that indeed it had been falsified. Dalrymple said that theories
which have been shown false should be discarded, and said that the theory of a
young earth was “in the same category as the flat earth hypothesis and the
hypothesis that the sun goes around the earth; all are absurd hypotheses.”
Dalrymple
explained that in order to date the age of the earth, scientists must rely on
measuring the action of some process which is constant over time. He discredited
several arguments made by creationists, saying that they were based on processes
which are not constant. He gave as examples the measurement of the earth’s
cooling, the small amount of dust on the moon and the supposed decay of the
earth’s magnetic field, each of which, according to creationists, point toward
a young earth.
Dalrymple
said that more widely accepted values for the age of the earth were based on a
technique known as radiometric dating. This technique relies on the decay rates
of certain radioactive elements, which, he said, are known to be constant to
within a few percent. He said that one creation-scientist, Harold Slusher, of
the Institute for Creation Research, had argued that the decay rate of iron-57
was not constant. Said Dalrymple, “The problem with this is that iron-57 is
not radioactive.”
The
court adjourned at the end of Dalrymple’s direct testimony.
Wednesday,
9 December 1981
Plaintiffs’
Witnesses Dalrymple, Morowitz,
Gould, Glasgow
The third day of the trial opened with the cross-examination of Dr. Dalrymple by
Defense attorney David Williams. Williams questioned Dalrymple about the
validity of radiometric dating. Dalrymple testified that “as far as we
know,” the radioactive decay rate of an element is constant, but in response
to a ‘question by Williams, said that it didn’t make any difference whether
the decay rate was constant before the formation of the solar system, about 4.5
billion years ago.
Dalrymple said that all
methods for calculating the age of the earth rely on the constancy of
radioactive decay rates, and said that “in a certain sense,” this was an
assumption of the methods.
He said that for the rate
of decay to change, there would need to be a change in the physical laws of the
universe. He testified that the rate of decay is found to be constant in the
laboratory, and from theoretical considerations. He also said that radioactive
testing gives consistent results.
Williams asked where in the
Act Dalrymple found a figure for the age of the earth of 10,000 years. Dalrymple
replied that this was not a part of the Act itself, but was a common figure
given by creationists. Williams then asked whether Dalrymple would consider
“several hundred million years” to be recent. Dalrymple agreed that on a
geological time scale this would be recent.
Judge Overton interrupted
at this point to ask Williams just how the state intended the phrase
“relatively recent” to be taken. Williams said that the state was not tied
to any particular figure. Overton disagreed with Williams’ opinion that the
question would not be raised in the biology classroom. “I’m puzzled as to
what the teacher is supposed to say,” said Overton.
When questioning of
Dalrymple resumed, he was asked about the use of radiometric dating in
conjunction with fossils. He agreed that this method was the best way of dating
fossils found in a particular geological formation, and agreed that much of the
case for evolution relied on this method. He agreed that because of its
importance in this area, evidence about the accuracy of radiometric dating
should be studied.
Williams then asked
Dalrymple whether he knew of any reputable scientist who had called into
question the validity of radiometric dating. Dalrymple said, “No,” but when
pressed, he admitted that one who had done so was Dr. Robert Gentry of
Oak Ridge National Laboratories. Dalrymple said that, according to Dr. Paul
Daymon, professor of Geosciences at the University of Arizona, if Gentry’s
conclusions were correct, they would cast doubt on all of geochronology.
Dalrymple said that Gentry
had made a proposal for the falsification of his theory, but that it was not
clear whether it was valid. Dalrymple said that Gentry had claimed that if a
“hand-sized piece of granite” could be synthesized, then he would consider
his theory falsified. Dalrymple said that this was a difficult technical
problem, but that he did not see its relevance to Gentry’s claims. He admitted
that Gentry was a competent scientist.
In response to a question
from Williams, Dalrymple said that he was a member of the American Geophysical
Union, and admitted that he had drafted an anti-creation proposal for that
organization. He said that an abbreviated resolution had been adopted by the
A.G.U. on 6 December 1981, the day before the trial had begun.
Dalrymple said that he had
read “about two dozen” books and pamphlets by the creationists, and that
“every piece of creationist literature I have looked into so far has had very,
very serious flaws-and I think I have looked at a representational sample.” He
admitted however, that while he was aware of Gentry’s work, he had not made an
attempt to examine it more closely before the trial. Dalrymple said that Gentry
had raised “a tiny mystery,” for which “I suspect we will eventually find
an explanation.”
Williams asked Dalrymple
whether he believed in God. Dalrymple said the question was “highly
personal,” but said that he was “half way between an agnostic and an
atheist,” though he had “reached no final conclusions.” He said that there
was no evidence for God’s existence, but that a religious person could be a
competent scientist.
On redirect examination,
Dalrymple was asked further about the recently adopted A.G.U. resolution and
read the resolution into the record. Dalrymple agreed that Gentry’s theory
depends on supernatural causes and that his proposed test for falsification was
“meaningless.”
Judge Overton interrupted
to ask for an explanation of Gentry’s theory. Dalrymple explained at some
length the content of Gentry’s research and the conclusions which Gentry had
suggested.
On recross examination, the
subject of Gentry’s work again arose, and Dalrymple said that the source of a
theory might be important in assessing the validity of that theory.
Dr.
Harold Morowitz*
After
the conclusion of the cross-examination of Dalrymple on Wednesday morning, the
plaintiffs called Dr. Harold Morowitz, professor of biophysics and molecular
chemistry at Yale University. Morowitz testified that because “sudden creation
assumes supernatural causes” it is “outside the realm of science.”
Morowitz
complained that the “two model” approach to origins outlined in Act 590
implied that under that law, only those two strictly defined models could be
taught, and no others. This, he said, would be limiting on science teachers who
might want to take positions not quite identical to either of the two models.
Morowitz
said most creationists argue that the complexity of living things indicates that
they could not have occurred by chance. Creationists, he said, “move from
complexity to improbability,” and added, “but the fact of the matter is that
we do not know the ways in which life came about,” and said science could one
day learn of completely mechanistic processes by which complex living organisms
first came into existence.
*From
this point on the account follows that of the Times (Cal Beisner) of Pea Ridge,
Arkansas (Dec. 30, 1981), except supplements noted by brackets.
He
said creationists also rely on arguments based on the second law of
thermodynamics. This law, he said, states that natural processes in closed
systems tend toward maximum randomness, a breakdown in complexity. However, he
said, creationists ignored the fact that the earth is not a closed system, but
receives energy from the sun, making it an open system in which temporary, local
processes can occur in a direction opposite that described by the second
Law-that because of the energy the earth receives from the sun, growth in
complexity and therefore the naturalistic origin of life are possible.
“Evolution,”
he said, “rather than being contrary to the laws of thermodynamics, is an
unfolding of the laws of thermodynamics.” He said while science could know
that the ordering effect of the flow of energy through the system had caused the
origin of life, it was not clear how this happened.
Under
cross-examination, Morowitz testified that he had calculated the chance
combination of elements to form life at about one to 101,000,000,000,
the number one followed by one billion zeroes. He said, however, that those odds
could not be applied to the surface of the earth, since the earth is not a
closed system and therefore not directly subject to the second law of
thermodynamics.
Asked
if anyone had yet created life by the flow of energy through various mixtures of
elements, Morowitz said that in the thousands of experiments done, no one had
yet succeeded in creating life.
Asked
how he would define the scientific community, Morowitz said it consists of those
who make their livings within the field of science. He said science was a
“social activity,” and that essentially science was, in the words of defense
attorney David Williams, “what is accepted in the scientific community.”
Dr.
Stephen Jay Gould
The
plaintiffs then called Stephen Jay Gould, professor of geology at Harvard
University, and a proponent of a view called “punctuated equilibria,” which
holds that evolution took place through fairly sudden, rapid changes in life
forms, which is the reason that the fossil record contains so few plausible
examples of transitions from one form of life to another.
Gould
said that creation science tries to explain the geological record, which he said
shows the age of the earth in billions of years, on the basis of a single major
catastrophe, a worldwide flood. Such a view, he said, is not “scientific,
because it calls on a creator to suspend the laws of nature.” He said that the
Act creates an artificial dualism when it refers to uniformitarianism and
catastrophism. (Sections 4(b)(5) and 4(a)(5) ) Modern geology, he said, accepts
both uniformitarian and catastrophic occurrences as responsible for the
geological record. He said that there were two meanings for the word
uniformitarianism: (1) the constancy of natural law, or (2) the constancy of the
rate of sedimentation. Modern geology accepts only the first.]
Gould
said that on the basis of a flood model of geology, one would conclude that all
forms of life were alive simultaneously, at least before the flood. However, he
said, the fossil record preserved in the strata of sedimentary rocks in the
earth shows that the animals were not mixed together, but are “rather well
ordered in a sequence of strata, from the old to the new,” and this, he said,
showed the flood theory to be wrong. Gould said that creation scientists account
for the sequence of fossils by so-called “sorting mechanisms,” but that
these mechanisms are not consistent with the observed fossil record.]
Asked
if, relative to paleontology (the study of fossils), creation science were
“scientific,” Gould answered, “Certainly not, because it calls upon the
intervention of a creator. . . . “The fossil record, he said, shows gaps
between various types of life, but while creation science calls on a creator to
explain the gaps, and therefore is not scientific, evolution can explain the
gaps as resulting from the rapid, short-term changes that occurred from time to
time along the branches of the evolutionary tree, and from the incompleteness of
the fossil record.
Gould
said that creationists misrepresent his view of “punctuated equilibria,”
claiming that he says entire evolutionary sequences can be produced in single
steps. This, he said, is not what his theory says, but rather that minor changes
occur suddenly. The traditional view of evolution, he said, could be compared
with rolling a ball up an inclined plane-the fossil record for such a view
should appear fairly smooth. His view, however, would be comparable to bouncing
a ball up a set of stairs-because he postulated sudden changes, the fossil
record should reflect gaps from one step in evolution to another. [Gould
referred to the fossil record as “woefully incomplete.” He illustrated the
fossil record as an old book in which there were few pages remaining, on which
there were few lines remaining, in which there were few words remaining, of
which only a few letters remained. He said that, because of the difficulty of
fossilization, the “resolution” of the fossil record was probably not
sufficient to show speciation - which would occur quite rapidly according to
Gould. Gould then gave some examples of the transitional forms which do occur in
the fossil record. Two examples mentioned were Archaeopteryx, a birdlike
creature with some reptilian characteristics, (thought to be a transitional form
between reptiles and birds) and “Lucy” (a fossil hominid classified as Australopithicus
afarensis), apparently a human ancestor, thought to be about 3.5 million
years old. He gave other examples of hominid transitional forms, such as Homo
habilis and Homo erectus].
Asked
if evolutionary theory presupposed the absence of a creator, Gould replied,
“No, evolutionary theory functions either with or without a creator, so long
as the creator works by natural laws.”
Under
cross examination, Gould said science was not his only motive for opposing
creation science, but that another was his political liberalism.
Asked if the term “creator” were inherently religious, Gould said,
“not inherently.” He said it had some “metaphorical senses in the
vernacular,” and was used that way by Darwin and Einstein. He also said that
while the “best judgment of the scientific community” was that “life arose
naturally,” that was “subject to question and being proved wrong, just like
anything else in science.” [When questioned by Williams, Gould agreed that
logically there were only two alternatives-either there was a creator, or there
was not.]
Dr.
Dennis R. Glasgow
The
plaintiffs then called Dr. Dennis R. Glasgow, supervisor of science education in
the Little Rock schools, who coordinates curriculum development for science
courses in those schools.
Glasgow
testified that creation science has never been treated in the science curriculum
for the Little Rock schools, while evolution is treated under 18 concepts. He
said all science courses, from kindergarten through twelfth grade, would be
affected by Act 590, and that no materials of scientific merit are available to
balance the two views in the state’s public schools. “There aren’t any
materials available at all that I know of,” Glasgow said.
He
said the principle of evolution is reinforced by analogy at all levels of
nature, and that therefore that principle provides a unifying theme of whole
books in the science courses. This, he said, would require massive restructuring
of the science education curriculum in his schools, and he didn’t know how
that could be done since he was unaware of any legitimately scientific materials
on creation science.
Asked
if he understood the term “balanced treatment” as used in the act, he said
he didn’t know what it meant, but that he had made an operational definition
in his own mind which was that it required “equal emphasis or equal
legitimacy” to be given to each view. For this reason, he said, teachers could
not give their professional viewpoints on the models, because that would be
unequal emphasis and would imply unequal legitimacy.
Glasgow
testified that one sample curriculum for teaching two models, prepared by Dr.
Richard Bliss of the Institute for Creation Research, would not be usable under
Act 590 because it made value judgments and implied that there were only two
views, while in fact there are many. The defense objected, saying that this was
irrelevant, since no one had required Bliss’s curriculum to be used in the
Arkansas schools.
Asked
how he would implement Act 590 as a curriculum developer, Glasgow said, “I
don’t think I can implement the provisions of Act 590 to provide balanced
treatment,” and added that creation science could not be taught without
religion and that none of the materials about it he had seen were acceptable to
him.
He
also said teaching two views without allowing teachers to give their
professional opinions would “damage the security of students” and “lower
the student’s opinion of the teacher,” and would lead the students to be
skeptical of information in class on other issues because they would think that
at least some was untrustworthy, since one of these views had to be wrong, and
therefore others might be untrustworthy as well.
He
said there was no educational purpose in teaching creation science in accord
with Act 590 and that such teaching would be “damaging as far as education is
concerned.” He also said it would hinder the hiring of good teachers in
Arkansas, because they would not want to teach where they were required to
present something unscientific.
Under
cross examination Glasgow said a study of the effects of presenting two models
by Bliss indicated students increased In cognitive development and critical
ability when both models were presented. He acknowledged that the law would not
necessarily require “equal time” to be given to the two views, and that
nothing in the law specifically said teachers could not make a professional
judgment to their students as to the validity of either theory. He said students
should be free to question various ideas, but that they had not yet developed
the capability to judge between views well before they were old enough to leave
the public school systems.
He
also said that his belief that it would be impossible for teachers and
administrators to devise a curriculum for balanced treatment presupposed his
belief that creation science is not science but religion. He also said one
reason he objected to Act 590 was that he was offended that the legislature
might restrict his discretion as a curriculum advisor.
Ronald W. Coward
Thursday
morning, the plaintiffs called Ronald W. Coward, a teacher of biology and
psychology, from the Pulaski County School District. Coward said what determines
what he teaches as science is his own ability to “decide what is good science
and what is not,” and that he must consider the interests of his student.
Creation science, he said, is something he does not consider to be “real
science.”
Coward
said that in reviewing for the Pulaski County School Board a creation science
textbook called Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, he was
“surprised” at the religious references the book contained, and did not
consider it scientific. He said the book attributed certain phenomena in the
natural world to an intelligent creator/designer, and that therefore it was not
scientific.
[Attorney
General Steve] Clark objected to consideration of the text because it had not
been shown that that book would be used by Arkansas schools.
Coward
said he considered it impossible to implement Act 590 because scientific
materials were not available to teach creation science. He said he would have to
tell his students that there simply is no scientific data for creation science,
and since he would not be able to teach creation science, then he would not be
able to teach evolution science either, since the two would have to be balanced
if either were taught.
Coward
said there would be a “tremendous time-frame problem” because “evolution
is interwoven virtually through every page of the textbooks,” and that the
textbooks depend on evolution as “the glue that holds it all together.”
He
said Act 590 would require some changes in how psychology is taught, too,
because some experiments in psychology to learn about human behavior presuppose
an evolutionary relationship between humans and various other animals. This, he
said, would require balance by a creationist view, but if creationism were true,
he said, then there would be “no interrelationships” between man and other
animals, and therefore such psychological studies would be “irrelevant to
us.”
He
said trying to balance creationism with evolutionism would hurt his teaching
because if he “tried to be impartial, as I believe 590 would require, then
students would see that and my credibility would be destroyed.” He said that
if he resorted to teaching neither evolution or creation, that would hurt
teaching, too, since evolution is the “key to science and biology,” and
without an understanding of evolution his students “would be unprepared for
college.” His inability to balance the teaching of the two, however, would
force him to stop teaching evolution, he said.
Under
cross examination, Coward said he had made no independent effort to find other
materials presenting creation science, and had not tried to obtain and read the
writings of any of the defense witnesses since the publication of their names.
He also said he never inquired into the validity of scientific concepts in the
textbooks currently used in science courses in the state’s public schools. He
acknowledged, in response to a question by Clark, that it might not be beyond
the ability of students to examine and evaluate arguments on evolution and
creation, if scientific arguments for creationism could be found.
He
also said that academic freedom would be overstepped by any teacher who tried to
teach creation science because that would be contrary to professional ethics,
since creation science is not scientific but is religious doctrine.
He
said academic freedom for students meant their right to pursue available
information in a field, but that his responsibility as a teacher was to sort out
and select what information was legitimate for the students to examine. Clark
asked him if his sorting limited the students’ academic freedom, and he said
it did, though he also said that the right of academic freedom for students was
an “absolute” right.
Although
Coward said he thought “balance” in Act 590 would require equal time to be
given to the two views, he said that one could teach two ideas, both soundly,
without giving them equal time.
Bill
C. Wood
The
plaintiffs then called Bill Wood, a science teacher in the Pulaski County
Special School District, who testified that he had been a member of a committee
in that school district to review creationist literature. He said the committee
had concluded that there was no science to creation science, and that the
materials they reviewed had no science in them.
Wood
said he believed “balanced treatment” would require that the two views be
given “equal dignity, equal treatment, equal time, and equal basis for
inclusion into the body of scientific knowledge,” and complete objectivity. He
said he did “not like [scientific creation] because I don’t think it’s
science, I think it’s religion.” He said the reason he thought it was
religious was that its ideas came from the book of Genesis in the Bible.
He
said he believed the results for his students of a two-model approach would be
injurious to their ability to see broad pictures in science.
On
cross examination, assistant Attorney General Callis Childs asked Wood to read a
portion of material prepared for balanced treatment in the Pulaski school
district which questioned the relationship of man to Ramapithecus and Australopithecus,
alleged ancestors to man. Childs asked him if that were “evidence implying
separation of man and other primates” in ancestry, and Wood said it was.
Ed Bullington
The
plaintiffs next called Ed Bullington, a teacher of American history, sociology,
government, and other social science courses in Pulaski County. Bullington
testified that Act 590 would affect the way he would have to deal with the
origin and development of human society in his courses, and that because he is
not competent to deal with scientific issues, he would not be competent to
present a balance of evolution science and creation science in those courses.
He
said that in some of his courses he already deals with religion sociologically,
and that that is not against the First Amendment, but that if he were to advance
a particular religious point of view, that would be unconstitutional, and said
Act 590 would do that.
Bullington
also testified that if Act 590 were upheld, students would “monitor”
teachers to see if their presentation were “balanced,” and some “could
become vigilantes,” leading to complaints against teachers which would affect
the renewal or non-renewal of their contracts.
Marianne
Wilson
The
next witness called by the plaintiffs was Marianne Wilson, science coordinator
for the Pulaski County Special School District, who testified that she had been
involved in an attempt to develop a “two-model” curriculum but that those
attempts were futile because the committee charged with the task could find no
scientific evidence for creationism.
She
explained she had first heard of creation science when, in Dec., 1980, Larry
Fisher, a science teacher in her school district, showed her a resolution he
wanted to present to the Pulaski County School Board. The resolution called for
balanced presentation of creation science and evolution. The school board passed
the resolution and then asked her to form a committee to implement it. That, she
said, was the first time she actually read the resolution. She said it
“reminded me of Genesis,” causing her to “raise my eyebrows.”
She
said the committee reported to the board that they did not think it possible to
design a balanced curriculum because creationism wasn’t scientific. The board,
she said, essentially told them that it hadn’t asked their opinion, it had
just given them a job to do and the committee should get to it.
She
asked Fisher for materials, and he gave her a number of creationist writings,
which the committee reviewed. She then contacted experts in the fields of
biology, geology, paleontology, and other science fields, for help in “finding
legitimate sources,” made a general outline for the curriculum using Act 590,
and tried to build a positive case for creationism, as opposed merely to a
negative case against evolutionism.
When
asked if she had ever found documentation from the scientific community for so
much as one single point of the creationist arguments, she said she had found
none. Still, she said, she had devised the curriculum unit because her school
board had ordered her to do so, but said it was “by no means” in teachable
form. She also said the curriculum did not “support creationism
scientifically.”
When
asked whether she had tried to make use of the two-model approach designed by
Bliss, she said she had not because it referred to a creator, so she “threw it
in the trash.”
Under
cross examination by Clark, Wilson said she did not believe the state has a
right, through legislation, to prescribe curriculum for its schools. She also
said that a belief in a recent origin of man and the earth need not be
religious. She acknowledged that although four texts now used in the public
schools in her county mention creation science, she had not contacted the
publishers of those texts to see if they could provide further information on
it.
Clark
asked her if she were familiar with work done by Robert Gentry on polonium
haloes in granites, and she said she had seen something about it, but had thrown
it out. He asked her if she had thrown it out because she couldn’t understand
it, and she said, “No.” He then read from her pretrial deposition a
statement in which she said she had thrown it out because she couldn’t
understand it. She replied that that was only one of the reasons, that other
science teachers she had talked with also knew nothing about it, and that if
science teachers had a hard time understanding it, it would be unreasonable to
expect students to deal with it.
Dr.
William V. Mayer
Dr.
William V. Mayer, professor of biology at the University of Colorado and
director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Boulder, Colo., was called
late Thursday as the plaintiffs’ last witness.
Mayer
said since the inception of the BSCS in 1960, he was sure that their decision to
make more open reference to evolution in the textbooks they produced would
“wave a red flag before certain fundamentalists” and lead to conflict.
However, they had decided that evolution was so central to understand all of
science that for the sake of quality textbooks in the sciences they would have
to discuss it in more depth than had been the case before 1960.
He
said evolution is the only thing that ties biology all together, and added that
students can’t understand one organism if that organism is not related to
other organisms, because comparison is necessary for understanding.
Asked
by ACLU attorney Robert Cearley whether biology could be presented without
evolution, Mayer replied, “not with any cohesiveness.” He said that
evolution does not properly include the actual study of the origin of life, but
that normally that was touched upon in teaching biology, and the various ideas
presented on that included chemical speculations, pan spermia (the idea that the
universe if filled with the “seeds” of life), spontaneous generation (the
idea that life came about suddenly by random chance combination of elements),
and the “steady state” theory, which says that life and the universe have
always existed.
These views, he said, all
have in common the fact that they are based on evidences and observations, that
they speak of entirely naturalistic mechanisms and that there is no appeal to a
creator. The court recessed at this point in Mayer’s direct testimony.
Friday, 11 December 1981
He objected to the term
“evolution science” in Act 590 on the basis that it implied that there was
such a thing as a science which was non-evolutionary, which he said is not true.
He also said the act’s description of evolution was not accurate, but that its
description of creation science was precisely what he has found in some 27 years
of reading creationist literature. He said dividing views on origins into just
two basic positions, was an “artificial dichotomy” which forced students to
decide between evolution and belief in God, while in fact many evolutionists
also believe in God.
Mayer said the effect on
students of teaching creationism would be confusion and division in the classes,
causing more problems than it would solve by mixing theology and science in a
way that “damages both and is helpful to neither.” In addition, he said, it
would “throw an unnecessary roadblock in front of students by asking them to
understand science and also to adjudicate between science and religion. He said
it offered them too many alternatives, including choices between believing in a
worldwide flood and not believing in it; believing that mutation is sufficient
for evolutionary changes, and not believing it; and other such dichotomies.
When asked if it were
“proper” to “let students decide” on controversial scientific issues
such as this, Mayer said that these were not the only two alternatives in
understanding origins, and that one teacher and his students in a class would
not be capable of treating the issue in an intelligent way and coming to “a
proper conclusion” in fifty minutes of class time. He added that teaching the
two views would not foster the growth of cognitive abilities.
Mayer said the difference
“between science and creation science” is that between two different
epistemological systems, two different ways of approaching knowledge. He
compared it with the differences between the ways of stating truth used by a
poet and a historian, It would be illegitimate, he said, for one to say the
other’s way of saying things was wrong and his own right, because they are two
different ways of looking at the world.
He said the source of
creation science was a belief in supernatural, divine “revelation,” and this
was reflected in creationist literature, which often referred to the Bible as
the Word of God. He said religion is the “unifying theme” in creationist
writings, not science. He quoted numerous references to religious beliefs in
creationist literature.
He said the effect of such
references in the literature would be to “imprint the students with the idea
of a creator,” and confuse them by making them think there are two
alternatives which are not really alternatives at all, because one is science
and the other is religion.
When asked if he thought it
were impossible to teach creationism without religion, he said, “Yes, that’s
what’s in the literature and demanded by [creation science]. He said BSCS had
considered and rejected the idea of including creation science in its texts for
that reason.
He referred to Biology:
A Search for Order in Complexity, a major creationist textbook, and said it
differed from other biology textbooks in that it had no “unifying
principle,” and it “attempted to prevent students from seeing
relationships” among animals, and that it was religious. He said he knew of no
similar biology textbooks.
Asked if evolution favored
any religious position, Mayer replied that it did not because it was
non-theistic, not atheistic. In other words, evolution doesn’t address the
question of the existence of a god or creator, while creation depends on the
existence of a creator.
Mayer also testified that
the idea of “balance” as talked of in Act 590 was “vague,” and so
publishers of textbooks would not know whether they were fulfilling Act 590 or
not. Furthermore, he said, even if they wanted to balance the two, they would
violate the act if they put creation science in because the act prohibits
teaching religion, and creation science is inherently religious. He estimated
that the cost of preparing balanced textbooks and curriculum for the state’s
public schools, even if it could be done, which he denied, would probably be
about $1.6 million.
Mayer said it would also be
unwise to teach scientific evidences against evolution and for creationism as
isolated elements without reference to a religious belief because that would
“pit a few minute, isolated data against a huge, complex, well-ordered
scientific view of evolutionary theory.”
Mayer testified that Act
590 would come into play not only in biology, but also in geology, sociology,
psychology, history, and even literature, most of them fields in which the
teachers, because not competent in science, would be unable to deal with the
scientific issues and so couldn’t provide for balance.
When asked what “balanced
treatment” might mean, Mayer said he had “no idea,” but added, “This is
not an act for balance, but for imbalance. It would make creationism the single
most pervasive idea running through all of the state’s education system.”
Under cross examination by
Clark, Mayer said he could not say that any of the present creationist
literature would be used in implementing Act 590. He acknowledged that because
science is in a sense the “state of the art” in each of its fields, it is
subject to change daily.
When Clark asked whether
the traditional concept of “scope and sequence” in curriculum development
included the idea of balancing various issues in the curriculum, Mayer said it
didn’t but rather included the principle of selection among various ideas that
could be treated.
Clark referred to Mayer’s
earlier statement that he could find no reputable science text which dealt with
creationism in any way other than as an idea held in history or as religion, and
then called his attention to The World of Biology, a commonly used
biology text by Davis and Solomon, and directed Mayer to read a portion of page
415, which listed six of the arguments creationists use. Clark then asked Mayer
which of those he would understand as religious instead of scientific arguments,
and Mayer named none of them. Clark then asked which were historical references
instead of scientific arguments, and again Mayer acknowledged that none of them
were historical. He agreed with Clark that none of the arguments was presented
in that textbook as any more historical or religious than a book which would
present arguments for evolution.
Whe